Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20066735›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2010

A randomized double-blind trial on perioperative administration of probiotics in colorectal cancer patients.

Luca Gianotti, Lorenzo Morelli, Francesca Galbiati, Simona Rocchetti, Sara Coppola, Aldo Beneduce, Cristina Gilardini, Daniela Zonenschain, Angelo Nespoli, Marco Braga

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

89 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 203 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Comparative Immunomodulatory Profiles ofJournal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Microbiota in cancer: current understandings and future perspectives.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luca GianottiDepartment of Surgery, Milano-Bicocca University, San Gerardo Hopsital, Via Pergolesi 33, 20052 Monza, Italy. luca.gianotti@unimib.it
Lorenzo Morelli
Francesca Galbiati
Simona Rocchetti
Sara Coppola
Aldo Beneduce
Cristina Gilardini
Daniela Zonenschain
Angelo Nespoli
Marco Braga
University of Milano-Bicocca · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo investigate whether probiotic bacteria, given perioperatively, might adhere to the colonic mucosa, reduce concentration of pathogens in stools, and modulate the local immune function.

methodsA randomized, double-blind clinical trial was carried out in 31 subjects undergoing elective colorectal resection for cancer. Patients were allocated to receive either a placebo (group A, n = 10), or a dose of 10(7) of a mixture of Bifidobacterium longum (BB536) and Lactobacillus johnsonii (La1) (group B, n = 11), or the same mixture at a concentration of 10(9) (group C, n = 10). Probiotics, or a placebo, were given orally 2 doses/d for 3 d before operation. The same treatment continued postoperatively from day two to day four. Stools were collected before treatment, during surgery (day 0) and 5 d after operation. During the operation, colonic mucosa samples were harvested to evaluate bacterial adherence and to assess the phenotype of dendritic cells (DCs) and lymphocyte subsets by surface antigen expression (flow cytometry). The presence of BB536 and La1 was evaluated by the random amplified polymorphism DNA method with specific polymerase chain reaction probes.

resultsThe three groups were balanced for baseline and surgical parameters. BB536 was never found at any time-points studied. At day 0, La1 was present in 6/10 (60%) patients in either stools or by biopsy in group C, in 3/11 (27.2%) in group B, and none in the placebo group (P = 0.02, C vs A). There was a linear correlation between dose given and number of adherent La1 (P = 0.01). The rate of mucosal colonization by enterobacteriacae was 30% (3/10) in C, 81.8% (9/11) in B and 70% (7/10) in A (P = 0.03, C vs B). The Enterobacteriacae count in stools was 2.4 (log10 scale) in C, 4.6 in B, and 4.5 in A (P = 0.07, C vs A and B). The same trend was observed for colonizing enterococci. La1 was not found at day +5. We observed greater expression of CD3, CD4, CD8, and naive and memory lymphocyte subsets in group C than in group A with a dose response trend (C > B > A). Treatment did not affect DC phenotype or activation, but after ex vivo stimulation with lipopolysaccharides, groups C and B had a lower proliferation rate compared to group A (P = 0.04). Moreover, dendritic phenotypes CD83-123, CD83-HLADR, and CD83-11c (markers of activation) were significantly less expressed in patients colonized with La1 (P = 0.03 vs not colonized).

conclusionLa1, but not BB536, adheres to the colonic mucosa, and affects intestinal microbiota by reducing the concentration of pathogens and modulates local immunity.

Indexed as

Perioperative CareAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBacterial AdhesionBifidobacteriumColorectal NeoplasmsDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodEnterococcusFecesFemaleHumansImmunityIntestinal Mucosa

Identifiers

PMID20066735
PMCPMC2806554
OpenAlexW2135907703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.